What did you think of Peter Singer's solution to world poverty? Would you pull the child from a muddy ditch even if it ruined your expensive shoes? If so do you agree with him that it is immoral not to donate your disposable income (that you would otherwise spend on expensive clothes or other luxuries) to charities to help the poor? This is a hypothetical question--don't mess with it saying that you would take your shoes off before you would pull the child to safety, or that you don't have disposable income at all. Assume that saving the child would utterly ruin your shoes and clothes, and that they were super expensive, and that you have at least $ 1000 left each month after you pay all your bills, etc.

Now make this argument for the wealthy who have more than that in disposable income but choose to buy multiple million dollar homes, yachts, etc. Do they act immorally, given that children are starving and there are homeless people in the street dying for the lack of care? 

What would the following philosophers say?

a) libertarians

b) Kant

c) Rawls